AFGHANISTAN IN THE BALANCE: IS A MILITARY COUP INEVITABLE?

When it comes to telling the story of Afghanistan the pages seem to run forever.  There is nothing certain, nor anything close to the semblance of certainty.

Although the coming elections may do little to cure pressing, current problems, a definite change  is coming, but it is too early to tell exactly what that change will be. 

After ten years of rule by Karzai, who has run the gamut from American plant, to American antagonist, there is the sense that both the influence of the American occupation forces and the precarious balance Karzai has tried to maintain are both quickly waning. 

With an Obama administration focused on problems at home, Afghanistan is starting to become a waning concern.  Obama has even threatened an anticipated pullout from Afghanistan due to Karzai's uncooperative attitude.  There is also the sense that the double speak employed by Karzai in regards to the Taliban forebodes of something strange and dangerous.  At the same time that President Karzai continues to blame Pakistan for the misdeeds that the Taliban do, he is also seeking to include the terrorist group in the next government, in some form, to appease the Taliban members and other tribal groups, notwithstanding the fact that violence continues, and the Taliban has not agreed to even the basic terms that would allow it to have representation in the next government.

With that kind of duplicity, or at least ambiguity, the Afghanistan voter is left with a very poor selection in the voting process.  Karzai is out, one way or the other, but in a country where the deep rifts between tribes has never been resolved, and where government action must defer to Jirgas that include tribal leaders, there is a sense that unity is a word that does not define the country.

Tribal divisions have always existed in Afghanistan.  It was what allowed the US to defeat Russia in 1989, and what allowed the US to unseat the Taliban in the 2001 occupation   

The word unity then, seems to be an unobtainable quantity, unless, and that is an ominous 'unless', a totalitarian form of government is instituted. 

And that is because the instability of the current government and the increasingly militarized state could pin more organized military forces against an indecisive and weak administration. What the outcome of this imbalance is in the power structure of Afghanistan could be the best predictor of things to come.  The army in fact, would have everything to gain by seizing power, thereby undermining any action from Pakistan to aid a return to Taliban rule. 

The ability of the army to seize power, however, could be curtailed by the international community, either through the threat of sanctions or the withdrawal of aid if the existing government is not representative of the country's ethnic makeup and diversity.

The other side of the coin, of course, is that a military takeover, much like the one in Egypt, could very likely offer an effective foil to any attempt by the Taliban to seize power again.  Not that the Taliban would know what to do with it if they did: in all the years the Taliban has been trying to turn Afghanistan into their own playground, they have never been able to rule, govern, or attract a large following. 

However, a military takeover would delay indefinitely the possibility of a truly democratic government in Afghanistan, and could also backfire on the allies and the UN forces providing assistance much the same way that Pakistan has since 1989.  America's continued assistance and training of the Afghanistan army might not translate into cooperation. 

Of course, how great is the possibility of a coup is directly proportional to the Taliban's own quest for power.  

But the military, as in Pakistan, will have an advantage over any form of government or the Taliban: it holds the purse strings to billions of dollars in foreign aid designed to keep the military in a position of strength where it will be capable of mounting a capable defence to Taliban attacks and attempted takeovers.

In addition, the Afghan population may welcome a military coup, as a way to curb corruption and to ensure stability. But that welcome might not last very long.  Afghanistan used to be a democratic country, before the military took over in the 1980s.  In fact, before the Russian invasion and the Taliban rule, it was one of the more progressive Islamic republics in Asia. Women were included in the workforce and able to study.  

Given that distant past and the current sense of relative freedom afforded by the US occupation, a military coup would only be welcome as a transitional government.  But the assurance that the military would relinquish power when it is the recipient of such large sums from abroad, is less than certain.  And that military might not in the end be so friendly to the West, or at least do its bidding in the measure that foreign agencies and countries would wish it to be.

As far as the Obama administration goes, there is no indication that military rule would be preferred.  But the current administration is not always the final authority when it comes to nation 'building'.  There are many on the right, and in the intelligence/military community in the US who could very well hope to see a strong military as a viable solution to Afghanistan's problems and as a way to continue to play a strong role in an area of the world that is crucial to US foreign policy.

OP_ED

4.03.14